Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 99 posts

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#11

Post by stephancoral »

degenerate wrote: post #4
danso wrote: post #2

TPP felt to me one of the issues that really defined the Trump campaign and the voters it appealed to. I think Clinton eventually [0] took a public stance against the TPP, but ignoring the public's perception of her relation to the truth, she clearly did not prioritize the dismantling of TPP in the way that Trump did. In fact, it's really hard to imagine her undoing President Obama's work were she in office. If someo…

This Podesta email isn't one of the DKIM-signed ones, but it shows that Clinton was ultimately going to support TPP regardless of what she was saying: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6616 (note the email is from 2015) As for Trump, he's done 2 of the "Seven actions to protect American workers" he promised for the first 100 days in office (PDF): https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102…

>As for Trump, he's done 2 of the "Seven actions to protect American workers" he promised for the first 100 days in office (PDF)

Pretty easy to hit milestones when the goals are low. "Announce intent" and "Stop bill that was never going to pass congress" aren't exactly adroit acts of statesmanship.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#13

Post by makomk »

jwtadvice wrote: post #3

Interestingly at today's White House Press Briefing, a reporter asked the Press Secretary whether the Trump Administration thought that it could surround/contain China with bilateral trade agreements the way that the TPP had intended to do on a multilateral basis. China has a couple of free trade deals in the region. It has a multilateral effort (RCEP) which is somewhat stalled and primarily pursued bilateral trade a…

China's ability to reach trade deals is probably somewhat limited by the fact that they do not believe in free trade or free movement of money and goods. Seriously, if America put anywhere near the kind of obstacles to trade that China has, economists and the press would freak out.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#16

Post by danso »

polartx wrote: post #10
zardeh wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it doesn't, or at least not as far as I can read. A summary of that email is > Here is a letter I've drafted outlining our position on trade. This draft assumes that Clinton will ultimately support the TPP and TPA, but we may change the letter dramatically if Clinton does not end up supporting the TPP and TPA (ostensibly because the final agreement doesn't cause a net gain in jobs).

Handy having a plan with contingency for a 180 degree pivot on her position.

"Contingency" was exactly the word I was thinking of. From the LA Times article I referenced, here is one summarization of her publicly stated opposition:

> “I still believe in the goal of a strong and fair trade agreement in the Pacific as part of a broader strategy both at home and abroad, just as I did when I was secretary of State,” she said in a statement. “But the bar here is very high and, based on what I have seen, I don't believe this agreement has met it.”

Of course Clinton, nor Obama, would sign a trade agreement that wouldn't be a "fair" agreement. But "fair" is not binary. Clinton could just as easily sign the bulk of the agreement as president after she claims that her advisers have negotiated for some concessions to make TPP more "fair". But Trump from the very start said he was going to kill it.

As another example, Trump, and every other politician, has been following the popular sentiment that drug companies (e.g. Shkreli, Epi-Pens, etc) shouldn't be gouging people on life-saving drugs. There's a lot of strong ways to criticize drug companies, and every politician does it because it means free positive press. But Trump outright said in his last president-elect presser that drug companies were "Getting away with murder." [0]

With healthcare in general, it remains to be seen if his promised reforms are going to be a net benefit. Or whether killing free trade will be a net benefit, for that matter. But Trump at least states his views in clear terms. Again, not saying that that's ultimately a great way of governance (massive government decisions and policy are a work of process and compromise), but hey, that's the kind of personality people say they want in their politicians.

[0] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-drugpricing-idUS...

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#17

Post by lhc- »

polartx wrote: post #10
zardeh wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it doesn't, or at least not as far as I can read. A summary of that email is > Here is a letter I've drafted outlining our position on trade. This draft assumes that Clinton will ultimately support the TPP and TPA, but we may change the letter dramatically if Clinton does not end up supporting the TPP and TPA (ostensibly because the final agreement doesn't cause a net gain in jobs).

Handy having a plan with contingency for a 180 degree pivot on her position.

It sounds like the criticism is "I hate that she might change her mind based on new evidence". I'd say its a good thing that they were willing to alter their policy based on whether it would create jobs or not.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#18

Post by hackerboos »

cyborgx7 wrote: post #12

Kill TTIP next please. The politicians here won't do it for some reason, ignoring the overwhelming opposition from the public.

TTIP is not likely to be ratified from the European side [1].

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Invest...

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#19

Post by bediger4000 »

paulofmandown wrote: post #5

I'm not that into the TPP from what I've read of it, but doesn't bailing on it just open the door for China to take the leadership role and dictate commerce norms for those still involved?

TPP included some things that were just flat out bad, like the "Investor State Dispute System" (a.k.a. Corporate Sovereignty) and exporting the USA's draconian "Intellectual Property" regime as one of those corporate norms. Both of those things make ordinary citizen's lives worse, at least in the very short term, and almost certainly in the longer term.

The TPP seemed to be more about free flow of capital, rather than free trade as such. Free trade is probably a good thing, but the TPP didn't include free movement of labor, which is certainly a good part of free trade.

The TPP was more "Globalism for me, but not for thee" from the multinationals.

Re: US pulls out of Trans-Pacific Partnership

#20

Post by danso »

woofyman wrote: post #15

Political theater. TPP wasn't ratified and wasn't likely to pass congress.

I think dismissing it as "political theater" simplifies the cause and effect, and the legislative process. Congress was controlled by Republicans in Obama's last term, but the popular belief was that not only would Clinton win in a dominating fashion, but the effects of her dominance would propagate downballot and win the Senate for Democrats, and at least make the House much closer. If that had happened, TPP would seem pretty likely to pass Congress in some form or other. At the very least, there would be more negotiations. Negotiations began back in 2008; Congressional reluctance was unlikely to kill TPP. Trump outright abandoning the plan will kill it more decisively.
Post reply on HN